PDA

View Full Version : Tax Haters



SRP76
20-Feb-2010, 11:33 PM
This is a side story to the aero-nutjob the other day, and applies toany others:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100220/ap_on_go_ot/us_plane_crash_tax_protesters;_ylt=AimaLUu44_NuQM. _wvhKnreyFz4D;_ylu=X3oDMTJ1MDh2YnJiBGFzc2V0A2FwLzI wMTAwMjIwL3VzX3BsYW5lX2NyYXNoX3RheF9wcm90ZXN0ZXJzB GNwb3MDMQRwb3MDMgRzZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3J5BHNsawNhdHR hY2tvbmlyc3A-


By STEPHEN OHLEMACHER, Associated Press Writer Stephen Ohlemacher, Associated Press Writer – 2 hrs 24 mins ago
WASHINGTON – Joseph Stack's methods were unthinkable — he is accused of ramming a plane into an Internal Revenue Service building in Texas — but his views on taxation follow a long line of protesters who believe tax laws don't apply to them.

While their numbers aren't large, according to experts, their arguments are so enticing that the IRS has published a guide to debunk their claims. In 2008, the Justice Department was concerned enough to start the "National Tax Defier Initiative" to better coordinate prosecutions.

"You would think a little light bulb would go on in their head and they would say, 'Why in the heck is everybody else paying taxes?'" said Peter R. Zeidenberg, a former federal prosecutor who is now a litigation partner at the law firm DLA Piper in Washington. "There are people who are peddling this stuff. It's a way to get people to believe something that's too good to be true."

A 3,000-word manifesto posted on a Web site registered in Stack's name rails against the IRS and accuses the agency of ruining his life. Stack's bitter feud with the IRS apparently drove him to commit suicide Thursday by slamming his single-engine Piper PA-28 into an Austin office building where the IRS has offices.

Stack's writings suggest he was part of a loosely organized movement that stretches back to at least the 1950s. Some believe the 16th Amendment to the Constitution, which authorizes Congress to levy income taxes, was not legally ratified; it was ratified in 1913.

Others believe that paying taxes is purely voluntary. Still others believe in fictional loopholes that would exempt large groups of Americans from paying taxes if they were only in on the secret.

Believers aren't limited to anti-government militia members living off the land out West. Stack was a 53-year-old software engineer in Austin. Other followers include movie star Wesley Snipes and a decorated police detective in the nation's capital.

"They're fairly prevalent," said Mark Potok, director of the Intelligence Project for the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks extremist groups. "We've had a right wing tax protest movement going back several decades now. They were very hot in the 1990s, but they are very much still out there."

The center has documented five plots against the IRS or its agents since 1995, including one that year to blow up an IRS office in Austin. Potok said he was unsure if it was the same building Stack crashed the plane into.

In 2006, a Utah man was accused of threatening IRS employees with "death by firing squad" if they continued to try to collect taxes from him and his wife. The man, David D'Addabbo, pleaded guilty to one charge of threatening a government agent and was sentenced to five months already served.

Not all tax protesters resort to violence.

Snipes, star of the "Blade" trilogy and other films, was convicted on tax charges and sentenced to three years in prison in 2008 after claiming that Americans have no obligation to pay taxes and the IRS cannot legally collect them. The detective in Washington, D.C., Michael Irving, got a 14-month prison sentence last year after prosecutors said he fraudulently arranged for the police department to stop withholding taxes from his paychecks.

"Most of us are respectfully fearful of the IRS. Most people understand their authority," said Matthew J. Campione, a former IRS lawyer who is now a tax law specialist at the law firm of SmolenPlevy in Vienna, Va. "But you have people who are gullible, you have people who engage in wishful thinking, you have some people who are struggling to make ends meet."

In the letter on Stack's Web site, which has since been removed, Stack said he had gone to "tax code readings and discussions" where he learned about "wonderful 'exemptions' that make institutions like the vulgar, corrupt Catholic Church so incredibly wealthy." He said an attempt to claim similar exemptions inevitably cost him $40,000 and "10 years of my life."

He also complained about a 1986 change in the tax law that made it harder for engineers like himself to claim certain deductions as independent contractors, rather than salaried employees. One year, Stack wrote, he didn't file a tax return, "thinking that because I didn't have any income there was no need. The sleazy government decided that they disagreed."

The head of the union representing IRS workers said federal employees are too often targeted with threats or violence for simply doing their jobs.

"This incident brings to light an ongoing concern that the atmosphere in our nation debases and denigrates the work of federal employees and contributes to such actions," said Colleen M. Kelley, president of the National Treasury Employees Union. "Too often, frustration with policies or politics takes the form of attacks on public servants, which is never justified and can contribute to misguided rage against federal workers."

The IRS has a Web site called, "Don't Fall for These Frivolous Arguments." Among them are:

_False claim: The filing and paying of tax is voluntary. IRS response: "The term voluntary compliance means that each of us is responsible for filing a tax return when required and for determining and paying the correct amount of tax."

_False claim: Wages, tips, and other compensation are not income because there is no taxable gain when a person "exchanges" labor for money. IRS response: "Congress has determined that all income is taxable unless specifically excluded by some part of the Code."

_False claim: Forming a business trust to hold your income and assets will avoid taxes. A family estate trust will allow you to reduce or eliminate your tax liability. IRS response: "Establishing a trust, foreign or domestic, for the sole purpose of hiding your income and assets from taxation is illegal and will not absolve you of your tax liability."


This always makes me laugh. Without tax, how exactly are you expecting your government to function? And even better, without a functioning government, just how exactly do you think you're going to live?

Danny
21-Feb-2010, 12:05 AM
A new movement by the government has been announced to suit non tax paying citizens. This new style of living has been coined by steve jobs as "Hobo". by taking part in 'hobo' you need never have to pay for those troublesome things like garbage men, or schools, or road care, or housing.
Thanks to 'Hobo' people under this non tax paying market, dubbed "Hobo's", can live according to there style. Want to squat in a house with no power and brush your teeth with cats? theres a 'hobo' for that. Want to live in the park and poop in bird baths to get noticed by people? theres a 'hobo' for that.
If you want to sleep under a bridge, holding up a sign made of a shirt and your own feces demanding drivers 'ask you about your zombie plan?" theres even a 'hobo' plan for you!

'Hobo'

because the government wants to put radios in your teeth.

SRP76
21-Feb-2010, 12:15 AM
[I]A new movement by the government has been announced to suit non tax paying citizens. This new style of living has been coined by steve jobs as "Hobo".

:lol::lol::lol:

Reminded me of the "it's called a bum" speech from Pulp Fiction.

Publius
21-Feb-2010, 12:19 AM
Interesting. I'd like to learn more about these exemptions he thought he could claim and was denied. It sounds like he was upset about the 1986 change regarding deductions by engineers, but I haven't seen any evidence that he was the kind of tax protestor (like Snipes) that buys into any of the false claims listed in the article. It's true that one year he didn't file a tax return "thinking that because I didn't have any income there was no need," but it looks like that year his business actually didn't produce any income, not that he believed wages, tips, and other compensation were not income. He just didn't plan for the fact that he incurred tax liability by cashing out some retirement savings etc. to live on.

SRP76
21-Feb-2010, 12:30 AM
Tax-dodging wackos aside, I think using the income tax system is the wrong way to go about things.

A federal sales tax would have been a whole boatload easier for everyone. It's impossible to dodge it. It hits everyone the same way, no bias. The people paying the tax don't have to lift a finger; it happens automatically when you shop. And since almost all states already have a state sales tax in place, it would add no extra "work"; accountants at every business are already separating and depositing tax portions of overall cashflow.

But it's too late now; the time to do that would have been at the start. If you tried to convert now, you'd be putting about a zillion people out of work, and crippling a whole economic sector. Between all the people the government itself employs to account for the taxes coming in and combing them for any error or wrongdoing, and the multitude of companies that exist solely to "help" Averge Joe file his taxes, and the companies that peddle "do it yourself" tax merchandise, income tax itself is a huge business. So we're stuck with this system by this point.

JDFP
21-Feb-2010, 01:24 AM
This always makes me laugh. Without tax, how exactly are you expecting your government to function? And even better, without a functioning government, just how exactly do you think you're going to live?

Since when has the federal government "functioned" for the working man? Sure, the state government does some good things with my tax money -- they help ensure I drive on fairly good roads to get back and forth from work as well as help with some other day to day activities. But help enlighten me on what exactly the federal government does to help me in the long run? (the armed forces aside).

If you're wealthy they will help you and if you are dirt poor and don't give a shit about bettering yourself they will cut you a check every month. Other than that, they can piss off as far as I'm concerned.

Of course, my belief is that the government should not interfere with the majority of my life on a day by day basis at all. It's not the government's job or responsibility to take care of us.

j.p.

Publius
21-Feb-2010, 01:28 AM
National sales tax proposals (like FairTax) are intriguing, but like you say it'd be really hard to move to that now. Evasion could be a problem with such a tax by driving purchases underground.

Putting tax preparers, tax attorneys, and IRS agents out of work isn't a bad deal economically, because in theory the work they're doing is unnecessary and thus roughly equivalent to pouring their salaries into a big hole in the ground. Without the income tax, they'd probably find something actually productive to do. But of course that's not an argument politicians can sell to voters so again like you say we're stuck.

SRP76
21-Feb-2010, 02:06 AM
Since when has the federal government "functioned" for the working man? Sure, the state government does some good things with my tax money -- they help ensure I drive on fairly good roads to get back and forth from work as well as help with some other day to day activities. But help enlighten me on what exactly the federal government does to help me in the long run? (the armed forces aside).



So importing goods that everyone uses and exporting goods (not to mention the shipping lanes and international freight systems that make it possible) for the money that drives your lifestyle (not to mention the finance system that produces and backs that money) are irrelvevant? As is interstate travel and scientific and agricultural funding, as well as all representation in international affairs.

I don't think so.

---------- Post added at 09:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:02 PM ----------



Putting tax preparers, tax attorneys, and IRS agents out of work isn't a bad deal economically, because in theory the work they're doing is unnecessary and thus roughly equivalent to pouring their salaries into a big hole in the ground. Without the income tax, they'd probably find something actually productive to do.

Eventually, there would be recovery, but that's the key word: "eventually". All those people can't just re-career (if that's even a word) themselves overnight. You'd have a massive hit of unemployed mouths to feed, that would only gradually ease up as they find new careers little by little.

Even in the best of times, that can be a catastrophe. If done during a depression, the damage can be unimaginable.

JDFP
21-Feb-2010, 02:09 AM
So importing goods that everyone uses and exporting goods (not to mention the shipping lanes and international freight systems that make it possible) for the money that drives your lifestyle (not to mention the finance system that produces and backs that money) are irrelvevant? As is interstate travel and scientific and agricultural funding, as well as all representation in international affairs.

I don't think so.

The private sector can do all these things that you just mentioned. The only difference is that they do it better and more efficiently. Even when it comes to the armed forces, at least Blackwater and other contract private companies ensure that their soldiers go into battle with the proper armor/material that they need. That's not to take anything away from any man or woman that serves in the armed forces though -- they have my greatest respect.

As far as the Federal Reserve, yes, they've done a marvelous job recently, haven't they? That's a rhetorical question.

j.p.

Publius
21-Feb-2010, 02:20 AM
Eventually, there would be recovery, but that's the key word: "eventually". All those people can't just re-career (if that's even a word) themselves overnight. You'd have a massive hit of unemployed mouths to feed, that would only gradually ease up as they find new careers little by little.

Even in the best of times, that can be a catastrophe. If done during a depression, the damage can be unimaginable.

Yeah, it'd be a heck of a lot of unemployment benefits, but the overall load on the economy couldn't be more than it is now because the economy wouldn't be paying those benefits AND the salaries of hundreds of thousands of tax preparers, tax attorneys, and IRS agents. One would replace the other. But yeah, it would be better to make the switch during a period of full employment. And it's politically impossible anyways. That's one advantage of simplification of the income tax over switching to a sales tax: hopefully you could still eliminate much of the drain on the economy of the current system, but it would be easier to phase in the simplifications over time so there's not as much of a shock to the system all at once.

Exatreides
21-Feb-2010, 07:42 AM
The private sector can do all these things that you just mentioned. The only difference is that they do it better and more efficiently. Even when it comes to the armed forces, at least Blackwater and other contract private companies ensure that their soldiers go into battle with the proper armor/material that they need. That's not to take anything away from any man or woman that serves in the armed forces though -- they have my greatest respect.

As far as the Federal Reserve, yes, they've done a marvelous job recently, haven't they? That's a rhetorical question.

j.p.

Blackwater does nothing but make this country look like crap. Everyone in the military(myself included) hates them, they kill civilians, loot plunder and generally get away with all sorts of...ill shit.

The private sector can do it better? Just like how before federal government intervention you had roaches and dead people in you're food in massive amounts. Just like how you had robber barons and monopolies where single corporations grew to dominate industry's and force workers into accepting terrible wages with no benefits.

Just like how the deregulation of the energy industry in California did great for the grid right? Thats a rhetorical question.

JDFP
21-Feb-2010, 04:55 PM
The private sector can do it better? Just like how before federal government intervention you had roaches and dead people in you're food in massive amounts. Just like how you had robber barons and monopolies where single corporations grew to dominate industry's and force workers into accepting terrible wages with no benefits.



Fantastic examples from 80 plus years ago there.

Let's bring it up to date and see how things go. Let's see, do veterans get better medical treatment today at a V.A. than they could get at a private hospital, generally speaking?

If you had a package you had to deliver, would you ensure it to the United States Postal Service or to UPS or FedEx for timely and safe delivery?

Working in the private industry for the Federal Family Education Loan Program (FFELP) I speak to people every day that are unfortunate enough to have loans through Direct Loans which is controlled by the government. They love their non-existent customer service and waiting 45 plus minutes every day to get in touch with someone.

The Social Security Administration. Yes, they are doing a GRAND job of things. I have no doubts whatsoever that the government will definitely be there for me with Social Security when I'm ready to retire when I turn about 90 years old in 60 years. No doubt, the Internal Revenue Service does everything it can to ensure nothing but the absolute best for all Americans.

Good mention of the "Bank Bailout" -- though you forgot to mention that the reason that some elements of the private sector were part of the bailout was because of government interference in the first place. The government was hardly a "Knight in shining armor" coming to save the private sector from its own destruction. But, if that's a great liberal's wet dream to have, go for it.

There was a time and place where companies were not based on sound principles and reasoning. MOST contemporary companies know that the most sound rule is to ensure the success of your employees and thus ensure the success of your business. It's a principle men like Henry Ford helped build this country upon. Unfortunately, Unions like United Auto Workers have been nothing but a plight the past 60 plus years to ensure the destruction of private industry and bring formerly great companies like General Motors to near destruction.

If you think that government can do it all better, take a look at the former Soviet Union. That experiment turned out really well for the citizens of that country from say 1917 - 1991 didn't it? Obama and his minions should take greater note from history. Instead of doing the exact opposite in persecuting the back-bone of this nation with private industry, it's time to start re-building.

j.p.